Rules of Engagement

Directives meant to describe the circumstances under which ground, naval, and air forces will enter into and continue combat with opposing forces. Formally, rules of engagement refer to the orders issued by a competent military authority with reference to when, where, how, and against whom military force may be used. Rules of engagement are part of a general recognition that procedures and standards are essential to the conduct and effectiveness of civilized warfare. These rules have implications for what actions soldiers may take on their own authority and what directives may be issued by a commanding officer.

Rules of engagement must be consistent, attempt to account for expected scenarios, and reflect an understanding of both the political and military aspects of a given situation. They might describe points with regard to dealing with unarmed mobs, the property of local civilians, the use of force in self-defense, the returning of hostile fire, the taking of prisoners, the level of hostility (that is, whether the country is at war), as well as a number of other issues.

The notion that war should be regulated has a long history in international treaties and agreements, the most significant being the Geneva Conventions, which regulate the treatment of prisoners and civilians in time of war. However, rules of engagement are a more modern concept. They are the product of fears concerning the possibility of nuclear warfare, advances in telecommunications, the role of the media in modern conflicts, and the increased use of military forces in a peacekeeping role.

During the Cold War, both superpowers realized that the potential advantages of attacking were not worth the consequences of retaliation. The possibility that a minor incident could result in nuclear warfare inspired a need to establish procedures defining allowable actions. At the same time, technological advances allowed for greater possibilities in monitoring what was taking place on the battlefield, tightening the chain of command. These same advances also created a more prominent role for the media. The tendency of war correspondents to make political leaders responsible for military excesses, first clearly evident in the Vietnam War, led to greater concern for regulating events on the ground.

The Vietnam War has since become a commonly cited example to describe the problems of requiring soldiers to fulfill an ambiguous set of objectives. It was also during this time that the acronym ROE (for rules of engagement) became broadly familiar. However, the concept of a standing order not to return fire without a clear target began with the U.S. intervention in Lebanon in 1958. The subsequent U.S. intervention in [Page 640]the Dominican Republic in 1965–66 also required restraint, and American soldiers became increasingly familiar with ROE. The standard operating procedures imposed on U.S. troops during the Vietnam War resulted in accusations that domestic concerns were inhibiting the military's freedom of operation.

Since the bombing of a U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983, a caveat has been added to the ROE, stating, “Nothing in these rules limits your right to exercise your inherent right of self-defense.” There was also the development of peacetime rules of engagement (PROE), which differentiated between hostile acts versus intent, and also emphasized proportionality—that a response must be appropriate to the level of threat.

...